Want some modern examples? Look at Egypt, a new democracy that has immediately been taken over by their new dictator Morrisey. All the unarmed people could do was demonstrate while being beaten, gassed, and shot at. Lets not forget all the children slaughtered in Norway. Gun laws in Norway are about the the strictest in the world and what happens? 75 children are killed!

First of all let me say its a damn shame so many young innocent live were lost in Connecticut. My prayers go out to the families. But maybe just mayber if one of those teachers was armed we would be having a different discussion. That being said, that young coward would have killed regardless of weather or not he could have found a gun. Actually ironically Connecticut has some of the most strict gun control in the country including an assault weapons ban.
This is discussion is about more than that though. It has to do with the 2nd Amendment in America. The 2nd Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting or target shooting. It has to do with the ciitizen's defense from a tyrannical government. Not protection of the state, protection of the free state. As such every citizen should be as well armed as his/her government. It CAN happen here!

Number 7's hedge-against-tyranny argument is usually expressed differently, in my experience, from the way it's characterized here. The fear is not that our freely-elected democracy will be overthrown by some exogenous, despotic force; rather, it is that our freely-elected democracy will itself turn despotic, a fear which is characteristic of a segment of our citizenry that already feels beset by modernity and marginalized in a society that is liberalizing on social issues. Though there's a goodly dose of paranoia in this view, I have to admit that recent events, from the Patriot Act to warrantless wiretapping to Citizen's United and the general sense that we are transitioning to a government of the people, by the moneyed, for the moneyed, make it seem less absurd than it once did.

Underlying this is an argument that a government that can take away your AR-15 will come next for your deer rifle, and proceed from there to revoke your right to free speech, assembly, etc. This, too, makes a certain amount of sense, at least in respect of its own internal logic. The way to counter it, I think, is to acknowledge that a government with the power to protect itself from foreign adversaries in a world as dangerous as ours will also possess the means to protect itself from internal ones. The disparity in this power is exponentially greater today than it was at the time of the 2nd amendment's drafting, when the iron cannonball was state-of-the-art weaponry and the very idea of a standing army was controversial. That a band of armed citizens could fight off the military might of a government-gone-bad was still plausible in those days.

It is simple fact that the handheld anti-personnel weapons we're discussing here would be of little avail against drones, cruise missiles, and FAEs. If the government wanted to turn on its own citizens, it could do it, and unless we expand the scope of the 2nd Amendment to include private ownership of Patriot missiles and the like, your best defense is not to hunker down with your gun collection but to remain fully engaged in the political process, to make sure that (small d) democrats remain in charge.

And where do criminals get all these guns? They steal them from other people who have legally (and usually unnecessarily) purchased guns. There are JUST TOO MANY GUNS all over the place in this country. If you want to hunt, fine; have a rifle. But assault weapons and hand guns are for one thing only - killing people.

It seems to me like most of the argument against gun control arises from people's fear of being unable to protect themselves. Gun advocates will claim that banning guns will leave them vulnerable to any manner of threat, including the criminal that illegally obtains a firearm.

If the argument is indeed protection, then I believe what is needed is a more creative way to solve for the protection problem. Why do we need to kill someone in order to protect ourselves, and why do the weapons needed to protect have to be lethal? What I believe Americans on both sides should be advocating is the ban of lethal weapons in the hands of ordinary citizens, and the research & development of effective non-lethal weapons to replace them.

If one could develop for example, a non lethal firearm that could render an attacker immobile for a period of time long enough to phone an authority or escape from the situation, then you've effectively accomplished the same goal as shooting someone with a gun.

The added benefit is that you don't have millions of lethal weapons floating around, which lowers the probability that events like what transpired in Connecticut occur. If someone feels the need to carry the non lethal weapon for protection they can still disable the would be attacker.

This problem can be solved, it just requires a disruption in the way we think about the problem we are addressing.

Although I don't own a gun, the article is pathetic as it does not contain anything factual or of value. In fact, if the majority of the respondents still had a reasonable amount of function from 8 pounds of mass in their heads, they could research the data and see the information/opinions in the article is simply not with basis: "since the so-called assault weapons ban expired in September 2004, murder and overall violent-crime rates have declined". This does not take away from the tragedy of the situation but proves more about how this country has become more "cattle" or "sheep" to the ones really running it and don't wish to address problems proactively instead of reactively. Any model of training is designed to teach proactive activities since reactive generally means to late. Additionally, ones proactive decisions should be made on solid facts and positive performances.

These "sheep" responding are just simply to lazy to actually research anything for themselves. They want to be spoonfed information, want their jobs to have little performance with high pay, don't follow the facts surrounding the information their fed and making them think pharmaceutical companies are helping them when in fact they are on an international trial for Genocide, and the food they eat is actually near empty in value and full of an inconceivable amount of chemicals not to mention worthless calories. ie.. Fat, dumb, failing health country - look at the statistics before you gripe at this one.

You "sheep" are just yes, yes, "yessing" and following the rest of the pathetic crowd people which don't think for yourselves. There was plenty of information provided that this individual had issues and they continued to push him aside because it would inconvenience their already pathetic mundane existence and didn't want to actually do anything effective to address it ahead of time and the situation finally exploded.

WAKE UP AMERICA - Ya'll are sabotaging yourselves and it is starting to show up. The system is crashing and our patterns of living are causing problems on an international level. We need to go back to the basics of living from the land, raising our children at home and nursing them into their adulthood with positive reassurements and constructive criticisms. Not scraping for an existence that keeps us away from our families most of the day. The loss of these little souls and their protectors is tragic indeed but the retarded baseless articles and responses shows the true tragedy of our country.

lets remember folks criminals don't obey the law. Imposing more gun laws/restrictions will only effect the people who follow the rules, it does nothing but make it better for the criminals knowing that they have fire arms and rest of the civilian population doesn't , its unfortunate but there will all ways be crazies/evil people out there. As long as there are murders/criminals with gun owning the streets I would like to able to have my own firearm, Keep in mind I've never shot a gun in my life.

Gee..I never thought of the Constitution of our country as being "wrong"

Why idiots are wrong:

Every YEAR law abiding citizens thwart over a MILLION crimes by showing or using their legal guns. Often against criminals, who really don't give a shit about the law and will use them anyway. Of those over 1 million crimes a year, FAR MORE would have resulted in the death of an innocent citizen than the 26 that died in the school on Friday.

The second amendment is NOt going to be repealed. If that is what you are hoping for, then you may as well move to another country. And believe me, there will not be one person who will cry when you leave. NO ONE wants you here anymore...including your own mother.

Congratulations on having an opinion, but you might want to back up the asinine assertions made in your title and post with some sort of referenced fact and data. This post is essentially 5 minutes of my life which i will never get back.

I would agree with all the points apart from number 2. If these people can not find guns they will find another way to go on a killing spree. For example we have reports of arson on an almost daily basis. Over in China there have been several reports of schools getting attacked by people with knives, axes and swords. Less than 20 miles from where I'am (Wales, UK) we had one person drive around the city (Cardiff) mounting the pavement, killing one and wounding may others. I presume that when you get to the level of mental breakdown you simply reach for the nearest and most harmful weapon to hand. For some this will be a book of matches, car keys or a gun.

Other than that I'm 100% behind these points

"If only everybody around was armed, an ordinary civilian could take out a mass killer before he got too far.If that were true, then how come it never happens? "

Ummm, have you done any research before posting an ignorant comment like this?

A QUICK Google search next time will help you write a more informed article.
Its people like you that make lobby groups like the NRA 100% necessary.

Here are some articles where guns saved a life.. Again, random Google search:
Here is one : http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=3414

Here is another : http://fox6now.com/2012/03/25/man-credits-concealed-carry-weapon-for-sav...

Good points in this article. Here is some research to back things up:
http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/assets/pdfs/Other-Research/2006InjuryP...

Check out the understated last sentence in "Conclusions"

Yet another anti gun article with not a single fact to back up the slew of opinions posted. The only attempt at a fact in this article is #3 in which the author claims that people carrying concealed weapons could stop someone from committing these mass killings. Well, look at where these mass killings occur and you'll see they all have one thing in common....GUNS ARE NOT ALLOWED AT THESE LOCATIONS!!!!! That's why you don't see concealed gun owners intervening, the people who commit these mass shootings choose places where they know there aren't any guns. The shooting that occurred in the theater when Batman came out could've chosen 7 theaters that were closer to his house but chose an 8th one further away. The 7 that were closer all allowed concealed guns and the 8th one, the one he chose, was the only one that visibly posted signs that it didn't allow concealed weapons. You see what happens when you look at FACTS?

Propaganda piece on #3 especially. They do happen its just that the press are not interested in screaming it from the rooftops as they are if someone succeeds.
Here are several instances.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/12/18/mass-murder-prevent...

"If that were true, then how come it never happens?"
Any "journalist" who uses this type of grammar sounds as if they have a third grade education. And the view points from above are so lame, tired and worn out.
I do not know one gun owner who wants to play Wyatt Earp and "play" with guns.
Criminals WILL always have banned guns as they do now because they have no respect for the existing laws.
We DO need to enforce the existing laws so that someone who is mentally ill is not in the same house as an "assault" weapon.
I have NEVER seen nor have heard of a gun suddenly springing to life and killing anyone.
And YES the Constitution does protect my gun ownership rights.
You are quite full of the same old worn out arguments. You don't like guns, move somewhere that outlaws the ownership of guns.

#1. Timing is never an issue. People will talk about anything whenever they want. This is a moot point, and the fact you used it as your first point just shows how stupid the rest is going to be.

#2. I'm pretty sure no gun every killed anyone without someone pulling the trigger. They are designed to kill, both in defense and offense. It is unfortunate that they exist, but they exist because evil exists, not because they are evil. If evil has a gun, I'd want the right to protect myself with the same power that evil has.

#3. In fact, there are plenty of example where citizens have stopped mass murders.

Just like this 71 year old man did this past summer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWoLGC-n4i4

And here's a bunch of documented examples from the libertarian party's website:

A 1997 high school shooting in Pearl, Miss., was halted by the school’s vice principal after he retrieved the Colt .45 he kept in his truck.

A 1998 middle school shooting ended when a man living next door heard gunfire and apprehended the shooter with his shotgun.

A 2002 terrorist attack at an Israeli school was quickly stopped by an armed teacher and a school guard.

A 2002 law school shooting in Grundy, Va., came to an abrupt conclusion when students carrying firearms confronted the shooter.

A 2007 mall shooting in Ogden, Utah, ended when an armed off-duty police officer intervened.

A 2009 workplace shooting in Houston, Texas, was halted by two coworkers who carried concealed handguns.

A 2012 church shooting in Aurora, Colo., was stopped by a member of the congregation carrying a gun.

At the recent mall shooting in Portland, Ore., the gunman took his own life minutes after being confronted by a shopper carrying a concealed weapon.

#4. It isn't an issue of more laws or no more laws. It's an issue that laws these days tend to make more problems than they solve. I'd rather have less laws that are enforced well, and keep my liberties and right to protect myself, than to create more laws to disarm the civil obedient in the face of the disobedient.

#5. Criminals will indeed always find a way to commit their horrific act. It's not a question of trying or not trying to reduce violence, it's the fact that stripping ordinary citizens of their right to defend themselves is not the right way. We need more security where it is important. Why do we not have a standard for armed security guards at our children's school? It's our most precious resource, yet we remove all security. That doesn't make any sense to me.

#6. The Constitution is right. The 2nd amendment was written to protect against tyranny.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” (2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution)

There's a reason why every dictatorship first starts with disarming the public under the guise of safety. It's not made up. There's history to prove it. Our era is no different. If you believe it is, I believe you are sorely mistaken, and we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

#7. The same as above. I don't like to repeat myself.

#8. Slaves are people. Guns are objects. Guns don't have rights. People do. People have a right to own a gun. They don't have a right to own a person because that person inherently has the right to his life. It was a compromise for the time period that that was allowed. It was eventually corrected. Please don't play stupid with me.

#9. Training, waits, registration. Fine, but how much is enough. Where does it stop? Who is considered a crazy bastard?

#10. Please, do let everyone see how sarcastic you are, and how you like to put everyone into the same box and treat them the same. That's very non-discriminatory of you.

Full disclosure. I do not own a gun. Never have. Probably never will. I support liberty first and foremost. I'm not a democrat. I'm not a republican. I do not play team politics, so please don't do that with me.

I don't know who the editor is on this website but they should seriously reconsider giving this emotional nutcase the ability to post his "blog" here... You've got an article filled with untrue facts and no citations.

Go back to holding an "The end is here" sign outside the super market.

Posting this again - which was a reply to someone above:

George Mason: “I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people.”

James Madison: “A WELL REGULATED militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.”

Richard Henry Lee: “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.”

The National Guard is nothing like what is being described by Madison, Lee and Mason. And it shouldn't be a "moot point", and we shouldn't even have a standing army - the Founders you selectively quote were opposed to having a standing army. They did, in fact, make provision in the Constitution for a Navy to protect our shores. Without a standing army, the U.S. wouldn't have troops in over 100 countries and we would be focused on protecting our own country instead of Japan, Germany, South Korea, Iraq, etc...

Then there's this:

Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"

George Mason: “To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them.”

Noah Webster: “The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops”

George Washington: “A free people ought to be armed.”

Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights: “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”

Patrick Henry: “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.”

George Washington: "Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."

You seem to disregard the "shall not be infringed" portion of the amendment. A proper reading of the amendment in the context of the writings of the Founders is:

"Without a standing army - which we are opposed to and specifically stated that no appropriation for an army shall be for more than two years - a militia is necessary. Since a militia is necessary, we want everyone to have guns and know how to use them - from their youth up. While perhaps not every person in the country will be a current member of the militia, we want them all familiar with guns so that they will be prepared to assist us in the militia if we need to expand it in the event of some sort of attack on the country - from within or without."

Harvard University has something to say about this in the study:

"WOULD BANNING FIREARMS REDUCE MURDER AND SUICIDE?"

See here:

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronlin...

Excerpts:

"... the National Institute of Justice surveys among prison inmates find that large percentages report that their fear that a victim might be armed deterred them from confrontation crimes. “[T]he felons most frightened 'about confronting an armed victim’ were those from states with the greatest relative number of privately owned firearms.” Conversely, robbery is highest in states that most restrict gun ownership."

"a study comparing the number of guns to murder rates found that during the 25-year period from 1973 to 1997, the number of handguns owned by Americans increased 160% while the number of all firearms rose 103%. Yet over that period, the murder rate declined 27.7%. It continued to decline in the years 1998, 1999, and 2000, despite the addition in each year of two to three million handguns and approximately five million firearms of all kinds."

"Norway has far and away Western Europe’s highest household gun ownership rate (32%), but also its lowest murder rate. The Netherlands has the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe (1.9%), and Sweden lies midway between (15.1%) the Netherlands and Norway. Yet the Dutch gun murder rate is higher than the Norwegian, and the Swedish rate is even higher, though only slightly."

For everyone that wants stricter gun controls, or to ban them completely I am willing to compromise. I will gladly give up my firearms that I use for home defense and recreational use, as long as you give up the keys to your automobile. Swear that for the rest of your life you will only use approved public transportation. I think this will also solve the many fatal accidents caused by an automobile every year in our country. In those fatal accidents many being children either crushed or severed in half. I think by this solution we will get rid of the many careless idiots who put the lives of each and every automobile operator at risk every day due to their insane driving. Out of how many of these people who wish for stricter control drive intoxicated, text while driving, or have other distractions? "But that isn't fair what about all the rest of us who are excellent drivers with good records" Well too bad blame that on the select few who ruin it all for the 99% who are good law abiding citizens.

All the gun law talk aside, we do NOT live in a democracy. We live in a republic. Democracy is nothing more then mob rule. We have certain rights in this country that no matter how many people don't like it, it can not be taken away. A republic protects the rights of the minority. If any of these rights (freedom of speach, freedom of religion, and yes the right to bare arms among others) are removed from the constitution, the dead count will be enormous because civil war WILL ensue. I don't care if you don't like it, or if 90% of the country doesn't like it. I AM protected by the republic. This should not be a federal law discussion. It should be a state law discussion. This is why we have states, so that different people can live their different ways. This was the whole point of the republic. Just like a guy from San Francisco doesn't want some hick from Amarillo dictating how he should live his life and vice versa.

If you can’t ban guns, at least raise taxes on ammunition. By 100 per cent or even 500 per cent. The US would be a safer place and the gun lobby would have less reason to be up in arms.

Excuse the pun.

But the whole idea of taxing ammunition has an excellent pedigree. Back in Dec 1999, a very provincial Barack Obama, at the time no more than an Illinois state senator, was reported by the Chicago Defender newspaper to say that he was in favour of increasing “federal taxes by 500 percent on the sale of firearm, ammunition [sic] – weapons he says are most commonly used in firearm deaths.” The report went on to say that Obama made the proposal at an “anti-gun rally,” where he proposed a host of other gun control policies.

The report fed into the fear psychosis induced by America’s politically powerful National Rifle Association (NRA), which claimed, back in 2009 that the then newly elected President Obama would “increase federal taxes on guns and ammunition by 500 percent”. At the time, the NRA added that it was all an insidious part of what it called “Obama’s 10-Point Plan to ‘Change’ the Second Amendment.” That is Americans’ 221-year-old constitutional right to bear arms.

The Annenberg Policy Centre debunked the claims back in June 2009, saying it “found no record of Obama introducing legislation to this effect while in the Illinois state Senate, or in the U.S. Senate. Now, after further research, we can find no record of the president, or any other administration official, saying that an increase in the ammunition tax is part of his current agenda either.”

So far, so depressing. If Obama believes more guns in a system kill more people, why doesn’t he do something about it? Realpolitik? Perhaps. If so, surely the best way forward is to raise tax on ammunition to levels that would make buyers stop and think and probably neglect to buy. Prohibitive taxation has worked in many countries, especially with cigarettes and alcohol. Why should guns and the ammunition that makes them dangerous be off-limits?

It is important to say at this point, that increased taxes on ammunition are hardly a bold new idea. In 1993, the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan proposed a 50 per cent tax-hike on most handgun ammunition, and one that came in at more than 10,000 per cent on slightly more lethal arsenal.

It did not go through.

Somewhat dispiritingly, President Obama’s remarks (on Wednesday, Dec 19) that a “majority of Americans” back changes to some laws seems fairly anodyne. At most, Obama is proposing a renewal of an assault weapons ban (which existed 1994-2004), limits on high-capacity ammunition magazines and an end to loopholes allowing gun purchases with no background checks. But this would not mean an end to private, no-questions-asked sales at gun shows across the country. This would not take the estimated 300 million guns currently owned by Americans out of the system.

The only option? Tax ammunition to levels that make it unaffordable to buy, practise with and actively use a gun.

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Maybe, but people with guns kill many, many more people than they would if they didn't have guns,"

Google: Chinese man kills 9 people with knife. If there's a will, there's a way. Whether it's a gun or not, if an insane person wants to kill, they will with whatever they have. Of course more people are killed with guns because that's a murderer's weapon of choice. It's quick, easy, scares people and they can protect their selves from their victims. I bet you if guns didn't exist, the crazies would find other tools to use. Not everyone has intentions like that. The focus should be on preventing people from becoming psychos and not on guns.

I'm not a gun owner, and don't want to be one. I do believe in the 2nd amendment and the right to own guns. However, I do have 1 question, which I would love a gun owner/lover to answer. But first,

Every person who is against gun control, spews the same crap over and over...
1- if there was an armed security, teacher, or whatever at the school that day, this would never had happened.

2- The reason there is more crime in gun free zones is because the bad guys know there won't be anyone confronting them.

3- I have the right to carry a concealed weapon for protection

On these 3 points, I'll give them to you. You are correct. But my question revolves around the 1 thing. Why are you so against banning assult rifles?

On point 1- a trained person would be able to take out a bad guy with 1 bullet. No need for an assult rifle. You may as much damage as the bad guy.

2-Again same thing, all you need is 1 bullet. No need for an automatic assault rifle

3- those that do carry a concealed weapon, have you ever concealed an automatic assault rifle? My guess is no.

So the question again, is, why are all the gun owners/lovers and those who believe in the right to bear arms, so vehemently against banning automatic assault rifles?

I agree with time between Saturdays in that the 'reasons' gun owners are wrong are lame opinions without factual support or even strong logical agruments.

Actually.... No. 3 DOES happen... It just doesn't make the news. (At least two stories I saw on it in the last MONTH.)
Mass murder is news... taking out a gunman w/o anyone getting hurt is not news.

As to police shooting bystanders -- They are not disciplined enough!!!!
They should not be allowed to carry a gun if that's the best they can do!
A lot of police are just in the job to push people around. And when the DAs fail to prosecute the police when they act wrongly it fails to make them MORE CAREFUL. They need to be held accountable. Just as do all Gun Owners.

LACK of Responsibility in America is the damn Problem.
Along with Rights goes Responsibility.

Only after years of seeing Politicians and Corporations have Power w/o Responsibility EVERYONE have abandoned Responsibility.

I have the solution but no one will be smart enough to agree with me: Anyone who has received military or law enforcement training gets a lifetime unrestricted permit to bear firearms revokable only due to insanity or felony conviction. Civilians may obtain the same permit by completing a five week week course similar to the police academy. The second amendment probably prevents the federal government from enacting these requirements but they could be passed by all fifty states, people over a certain age could be grandfathered out so to speak.

I have never owned a gun, and as of now don't plan to. I dislike holding them, and don't enjoy shooting. So I can assure you, the heart of my arguments are not that I like to "play with guns." I consider this a fundamental issue that does go simply beyond gun control, but also includes the role of the government. But that's not what's being dissed here, I digress. If you want to know the *actual* argument gun owners make, then please, just read through this:
http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm

Before you say it's not even worth reading due to the url, just know that every single statement made is sourced. These are respectable sources, which are displayed so you can go to the original studies and whatnot.

Furthermore, I don't care what side any of you all are one, but there is far too much hate and argumentative fallacies all around the board. Please leave out the dogmatism; respectable people ARE allowed to disagree. Intelligent people can arrive at different conclusions from the same information, and that doesn't mean that one entire opinion, and everyone associated with it, must be discredited. The important thing is to legitimately look at how the opposing side reached their conclusions (instead of setting up "straw man" arguments like this article does), and see whats lying at the heart of the issue rather than throwing out shallow comparisons or numbers where you don't know where they came from.
Also, I really do understand the anti-gun sentiment. As I said, I'm very unfamiliar with them and have never liked being in the presence of one. I used to be anti-gun myself, but with more time and research, I found information I didn't have before and thought about it another way. That doesn't mean I was stupid before, or I'm suddenly stupid now. With any controversial issue ever, there are lot of layers at play, and the layer that offends someone's ideology isn't usually a superficial one. Accept the fact that concrete numbers will never prove one side valid and another invalid without a doubt. (And I'm not saying that to dodge the numbers game, I have a fair amount I could throw out myself, including studies of gun defense and commonly misplayed numbers, like over half of the 30,000 gun deaths a year are just suicide, football games kill twice as many students as guns, even conservative studies have reported 1.5 million annual incidents where guns were used in self defense, -these are all mentioned in the article I linked- etc etc...)
The point is, this issue isn't just a numbers game where "anyone with a reasonable brain" will have one opinion. It comes down to the fact that people have fundamentally different interests at heart which goes waaay beyond guns when debating this issue. Nobody wants innocent people killed, and that's the one thing I believe everyone here *does* agree on. And nobody is saying deaths are a "price worth paying" either. For some people, this comes down to the question of what is government's role, and what is appropriate restrictions on those lines. While it's clearly unreasonable to demand people by law to exercise or brush their teeth, or to not consume excess salt, protecting a peoples' right to the pursuit of happiness is never that clear. The boundaries are always fuzzy when it comes between doing what's best for the people, or what is simply harming them on the individual level. It's not even about the power of the government either, but the diversity of people under it's control. Different problems exist within different communities, and what may help one area may be a financial drain and endless paperwork in another, or even limit innocent activities. In some ways issues like this could be resolved by handling some issues on a state or even county level, instead of federally. As far as federal government goes, I personally want it's first priority to be protecting its people from foreign or domestic murder (The first step in our pursuit of happiness, but there's only so many things government can regulate before protecting that pursuit becomes limiting that pursuit). However, I also personally have a problem when in trying to "protect me" the government also eliminates my right to protect myself. People are not naturally born with equal capabilities on all regards, nor should they be. Some people are trained in throwing knives or martial arts, create homemade makeshift weapons, or are born strong or weak. Pepper spray could save a woman from sexual assault. You could also pepper spray someone in the face so you could easily beat them to death. Imagine if pepper spray was carried more by offenders than defenders. As far as guns shooting 60 bullets a second and killing larger crowds of people, well machine guns or automatics in general aren't allowed to the public already as it is, and they aren't what you usually see in today's mass murders either. What's technically listed as 'assault weapons' has also never been a weapon of choice for murders, and has only accounted for a small percentage of armed crimes. In Chicago your 67 times more likely to be killed with a knife than a gun. -Try looking up and comparing the change of crime rates in states that passed conceal carry laws- Here's a hint: They dropped by a lot where concealed carry was legal. Furthermore, police are not legally required to protect everyone on an individual level, but just the public in general. Polled felons show to be more worried about running into an armed victim than a police officer. "The Department of Justice found that in 1989, there were 168,881 crimes of violence which were not responded to by police within 1 hour." "As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.(23)" Also, contradictory to what this article state, armed citizens kill twice as many criminals per year than police, and at a MUCH SMALLER ERROR RATE.
"* Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606)(25). And readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The ‘error rate’ for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high."(26)"

Anyways, I'm done for now with number or individual points. But seriously, try reading that article to read what gun ownership advocates are *actually* arguing.

And furthermore, I apologize if any of my facts were incorrect or whatnot. It could happen to any of us, and I'm not personally an expert who is researching the issue. Just don't let irritation at the point I'm arguing get in the way of other potentially valid things I've said, especially those which aren't directly related to gun control. People these days are way to quick to discredit an entire side without looking carefully through a whole argument with a clean, legitimate approach to gain understanding about the fundamental differences between the two sides. Nothing is as black and white as people usually think...

Well said Crusinguy! Also, twice as many people are murdered per year by bare hands! What is the government thinking in allowing us to keep our hands?

My sincerest hope is that when some lunatic comes into your home and kills you with a weapon he got the same way most criminals do (ILLEGALLY) you think back to the words you typed on this page...

Point 2. is WRONG. The UK has 5 times the violent crime that we do, mainly because there are no guns that the criminals feel free to attack virtually anyone any time. Citizens are not even allowed to carry any item with which they could defend themselves. They have been directed to retreat when attacked or their houses invaded. There report of low gun deaths is WAY OFF because they only list solved murders, which leaves out all other categories. The UK is a violent place and the people have to live in fear.

Very simply, guns are a necessary evil as we will never be devoid of the 4% of the population that are sociopaths and psychopaths and will always have mentally deranged and we will always have people who are just plain evil. It's simply stupid to think that one should not be able to defend oneself from these people.

For example, guns are the great equalizer. Is it reasonable to tell an elderly couple that their only choice in a home invasion is to retreat and/or die. Retreating is meaningless if the invaders are out to hurt or kill them. So, disarming the elderly says that they are all to be victims and the criminals know this. That's just wrong.

Now, allow these people to have a gun and the balance of power shifts drastically. Sure, they stand a chance of losing to the invaders but they now have a very real chance of prevailing. The liberal claim that if they lost, the result would be that the invaders get the gun, and so the elderly should not have guns in order to keep guns away from the criminals. This is a specious argument that simply throws the elderly under the bus for the sake of a possible result. In their minds, the elderly are dead already, I guess they think it's their fault for getting old?

This list of 10 points is pretty limp.

1. When seconds count, the police are minutes away. You are are first line of defense and unless you are a martial arts master, a gun is the great equalizer no matter how big your attacker, or how many.

2. It is undeniable that, the more legal guns there are, the lower crime is. In every state that has adopted Shall Issue Concealed Carry crime of all kinds has decreased 1-3% per year after adoption. Criminals admit that they are worried about their victims fighting back and now they might be armed.

3. It is also undeniable that the regions and cities with the most strict gun controls have the highest crime rates, out of control and illegal guns from illegal gun-trafficking abound.

Australia has had huge increases in gun crime since they banned rifles and shotguns, up 31%. Home invasions are up 68%! In the same time period US crime has decreased 34%. The crime rates in other countries are interesting. Our rate is not bad overall, but if we leave out the inner cities, where guns are banned, the US is among the safest on the planet. You will never hear that from the anti-gunnists.

4. Indeed we need weapons because without the 2nd Amendment we do not have a 1st Amendment. History has shown this to be true over and over. Anyone who thinks that one can revolt against a country when unarmed is totally deluded and living in a fantasy world. Governments ultimately find their power in the barrel of a gun. Recently, a Federal Court even stated that it is the citizens' duty and right to try to keep their weapons up with the military. he said, they will never be equal, but they have a right to upgrade as they can.

5. Assault-style weapons are NOT assault rifles that can be on full automatic. They are not even as powerful as our lower-end hunting rifles. When somebody says that 7 rounds is all you need in a magazine, the response should be that the number of rounds needed is "As Many As It Takes." A magazine limit is arbitrary. Small clips can be replaced quite rapidly, are less likely to jam, and easier to handle.

People should ask themselves this important question: Does limiting the capacity of a magazine change the lethality of the first bullet?

6. The claim that gins in the home are dangerous and result in many deaths, such that family members are more likely to be shot than a criminal, is ingenuous. The overwhelming majority of home gun deaths are suicides, with only a small number of accidental discharges. Suicides will simply find some other means.

3. If only everybody around was armed, an ordinary civilian could take out a mass killer before he got too far.
If that were true, then how come it never happens?

It has happened. It just doesn't get the same amount of press.

http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2012/12/mass-shootings-stopped-by-citizens-...

@Sunstroked. Regarding your 12/18/2012 7:50 comment. Your pencil example is incorrect. If I ask the question, "What do you do with a pencil?" The answer is simple. Write with it. If I were to ask the same question, "What do you do with a gun?" The answer to that question would be, "SHOOT IT." Not, as you say, kill with it. Just as the person using the pencil has the power to choose what to write and where to write it, the person with the gun chooses what to shoot and where to shoot. What you fail to understand is, in the wrong hands, a pencil is just as deadly a weapon as a gun. You can ban guns all day long. But you can't ban evil.

Be a responsible gun owner and lead your friends and family members to gun ownership by example. Responsible gun owners know how to get many likes on instagram the obligations that come with the use and enjoyment of firearms. Hunting and recreational firearms use are a tradition in some parts of the country. We have no objections whatsoever to such legitimate activities, so long as they respect the standards and laws of the local community. Responsible, law-abiding owners know how to get likes on instagram better than anyone the inherent dangers posed by the simple presence of a gun. Once in possession of your first firearm, you can proudly say that you are doing your part to "keep guns out of the wrong hands."

Does anybody out there know What a assault weapon is?
The M16 is a assault weapon,the bushmaster,ar15,m400 are a lookalike,semi-auto. Shoots a bullet 223cal,yes the size of a 22 only at a velocity 3250 ft per second. You can't spray a room,you can't kill 10 people in 5sec. It doesn't have the kinetic energy to knock a man down. A mini- 14 fires the same bullet,wooden stock 10 shot clip,looks like a 22 rifle.(not scary).
The weapons that should be banned are the tech9,ingram mini mac 10&11.
These are the weapons that have no purpose except killing people.
A gun dealer told me how do you convert a mini mac11 to full auto-answer shoot it. It has cheap parts and the sear wears out by just shooting it.
I have an so called assault rifle, why?
I gave up hunting years ago-I only target shoot,a 22 rifle is the cheapest way to shoot,not very accurate,and not accurate at all over 100yds.
the assault weapons are very accurate (high speed) at long range
They are very well built,weather resistant, rail systems to add scopes,large amount of accesories and a lot of fun shooting. The so called assualt is way down the lineup of guns you would use to kill alot of people. Ask a vet, ask a marine. Shotguns are much more dangerous.10,20,30 balls of steel with each shot,semi-auto. The best thing about the 223cal,you can shoot a 100rds without a black and blue shoulder.
In WW2 they found out many soldiers never fired their weapons,to much recoil from the 1903 springfieild,heavy ammo.
They also came to the realization that a weapon that wounds is better than on that kills. It takes two men to carry the wounded man of the battlefied.
eliminate 3 men with 1 shot. Hello M16,light ammo,weather resistant,more likely to wound than kill,but can be switch to full auto when needed(so called assualt weapons can't)

1. Saying now is not the right time to talk about guns is taken out of context. What people said was along the lines, "Now is not the right time to trump a political stance in light of the terrible tragedy which occurred." And this was happening particularly with celebrities (who ironically star in action, horror and other highly violent movies filled with guns and gun violence).

2. The article admits, "maybe." Not maybe, but true! Guns don't kill people, people kill people and therefore, responsibility must be taken with those people willing to kill others.

The problem is that liberal theology is against capitol punishment - a deterrent to murderers - and cracking down hard on crime. A gun is a tool and just like any other tool, the user MUST take responsibility for the use of that tool. Also, stating mass shootings occur "every few weeks" in America unlike England without context and proof is rather weak.

Discussing Japan fails to discourse on the differences of culture, respect and capitol punishment, something we have lost in America but Japan still adhered to.

3. A CCW citizen stopping an armed attack "never happens?" Wow, if never means NEVER, then what about these:

Just two days after the CT shooting, the San Antonio theater shooting was STOPPED by a CCW (media totally quiet about that one!) http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2012/12/media-quiet-about-san-anton...

What about the Oregon mall shooter stopped by an armed civilian? http://www.examiner.com/article/media-blackout-oregon-mall-shooter-was-s...

NYdaily news here:
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/concealed-weapons-save-lives-article-...

Another study for you to download - but you won't read it http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=161637

Civilians stopped shooting average 2.3 deaths, 911 response average, 14.3 deaths (84% reduction)

Again, the article does not even CITE SOURCES! Wow.

4. Two fallacy's are used here: appeal to emotion and burden of proof. The author states those who say, "We don't need more laws, we just need to enforce the laws we have" are the "same ones who fight to make sure that existing laws are as weak and ineffectual as possible." Really? What an appeal to emotion.

So all people who say we need to enforce current laws are hereby trying to make the law weaker. REALLY? HOW?

Where is your evidence? Oh, no where.

The truth is, the NRA and Republicans have pushed for background checks, smaller clips and laws we have CURRENTLY. The truth is, every crime is a crime against a law. If there were no law, no law would be broken, right?

By definition, we have a problem with laws being broken even though MORE laws are being made and more effort to have waiting periods and background checks are being made. Besides, I AM FOR background checks and yet I also argue that we should enforce our current laws better. Just using me as an example BREAKS the logic of point #4.

5. I have never heard the NRA or Conservatives us this DEFEATIST statement. We do not say "Criminals will always find a way to get guns no matter what measures we take, so what's the point?" We say, "Why punish law abiding citizens for the laws criminals break?"

This is a simple question the article does not answer!

However, we AGREE to make getting guns HARDER, we AGREE to background checks, we AGREE to helping mentally unstable people.

No where has any Conservative said we should not try to reduce violence. I mean, we stand for punishment - even Capitol punishment, we stand to reduce violence against children - even those not yet born!

6. Yes, the Second Amendment should be honored and to say Conservatives think no limitations should be required is not true. Conservatives with liberals, AGAIN, have voted for background checks, limit rounds per clips and waiting periods. However, the Constitution should ALWAYS be protected and enforced, that is a good fight to fight. The current Administration is already changing the 14th amendment to bypass Congress for dealing with the debt ceiling; in that light, we also see the 2nd amendment in danger of being changed as well.

It is not just about background checks, there is coming a move to restrict and hinder LAW ABIDING CITIZENS from self protection. Again, the article does not discuss that!

7. Again, no facts or cites given. Remember what Jefferson said in his letter to Major John Cartwright (5 June 1824)

"The Constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." -Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies, Randolph p. 395

Jefferson wrote this in relation to the People exercising POWER over the government. We have seen, not in conspiracy theories, but in real life, that under Marxism and Communism the first thing to go were the people's power and voice.

That happened through gun control.

Answer me this: when guns are limited for the people, are they also limited for the government?

Or perhaps you want to discuss Fast and Furious?

8. I have not heard this point argued, but I would take it further: Guns are a part of the American Constitution resulting in our freedoms from tyranny and influencing our culture. Yes indeed.

To equate guns with slavery is a typical fallacy but I would say: slavery is still taught in history and artifacts/historical documents are still sold in auctions. So should guns, but some new laws coming down would even prohibit collectors from owning HISTORICAL guns.

A shame!

9. This shows my point already given: We have allowed for gun restrictions already! YES! But gun restrictions and gun control (and the extent of that control) are different and need to be further discussed.

10. This is offensive to even suggest, the article then admits "OK, that's actually an argument gun advocates don't make." Ok, then DROP it! But no, the article then states, "it's the truth that lies beneath all their other arguments."

This is a classical Circumstantial Ad Hominem fallacy which states, "a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self interest."

The article suggests that the 'self interest' of gun owners actually ALLOWS for such tragedies as a price "they are willing to pay."

What a despicable thing to say, especially given Conservatives vow to increase punishment of violent crimes and make schools safer by increasing security and even armed guards!

When you write an article full of fallacy and biased opinions without evidence and conclude by BLAMING Conservatives and gun owners for ALLOWING these tragedies, you make my point succinctly: instead of placing blame on criminals, you blame law abiding citizens!